From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39541 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2015 23:00:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 39522 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2015 23:00:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:00:39 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Zlm55-0001yd-PV from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:00:35 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:00:34 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlm53-0002qd-2P; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:00:33 +0000 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 23:00:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Bernd Schmidt CC: , Subject: Re: Test for __cxa_thread_atexit_impl when cross-compiling libstdc++ for GNU targets In-Reply-To: <561BE80D.6070208@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <561BE80D.6070208@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01182.txt.bz2 On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > A similar sequence of tests also occurs for *-aix*. I don't suppose the > function is likely to exist there or on other non-glibc targets? Given that the case there has "# We don't yet support AIX's TLS ABI." and GCC_CHECK_TLS commented out, I don't think this function (which is concerned with support for destructors of C++11 thread_local variables) is of any current relevance to that case. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com